Transcript DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL MEDICINE PROMOTIONS COMMITTEE

The Promotion Process
Presentation of the
Rank & Tenure Committee
Cecilia Hillard, PhD
Chair, Rank and Tenure
Committee
Medical College of Wisconsin
Objectives for Today
Describe Promotion Tracks/Pathways
Explain the process for Promotion at MCW
Provide some DOs and DONTs
Rank & Tenure Committee
Composition
Stephen Duncan, PhD (Cell Biology)
Joseph Layde, MD (Psychiatry)
Michael Quasney, MD, PhD (Pediatrics)
Frank Pintar, PhD (Neurosurgery)
Wai-Meng Kwok, PhD (Anesthesiology)
Craig Young, MD (Orthopedics/Sports Med)
Karen Brasel, MD (Surgery)
Dara Frank, PhD (Microbiology)
Jeffrey Whittle, MD (Medicine)
Jay Sandlow, MD (Urology)
Up-to-date information at
Infoscope
Faculty Affairs
The Promotion Tracks
Traditional
Clinician-Educator
Research
Academic Clinician
Promotion Criteria
Demonstrated excellence and
achievement in
– Research/Scholarship
– Teaching
– Service/Clinical activities
Amount and type of activity varies by track
Traditional Pathway
Independent, extramurally funded
researcher
• Senior-authored, peer reviewed
publications; PI on grants; patents
Significant contributions to the
educational mission
Service to MCW and to the broader
scientific community
National (Associate) or International
(Professor) reputation
Research Pathway
Research is the primary emphasis
• Can be an essential member of a research
team
• Lead a critical research core
• Can be independently funded
Educational contributions can be “traditional” or
in research training
Service to MCW and to the broader scientific
community
Regional (Associate) or National (Professor)
reputation
Clinician Educator Pathway
Scholarship and excellence in clinical
science and/or education
• Scholarly products are required; best
are peer-reviewed
Significant contributions to the
educational mission
Service to MCW or hospitals
Regional (Associate) or
National(Professor) reputation
Academic Clinician Pathway
Excellence in clinical practice; clinical program
development
• Less emphasis on scholarly products, but need
to show impact
Some contribution to the educational mission
Service to MCW or hospitals
Time in rank (10 years as assistant; at least 5 as
associate)
• Other institutions count; equivalent
nonacademic positions
Tenure
Awarded to individuals deemed “vital” to
missions of MCW
– Is recognition of future promise, based upon
accomplishments
– Reasons for vitality are outlined in chair’s letter and
referee letters
• Available for Traditional and Clinician Educator
tracks; Associate and Professor ranks
Granted independent of promotion, but can be
granted at the same time
Types of Evidence
CV
– Must be in MCW format; use the faculty
collaboration data base
– Follow the categories, use those that are
appropriate for you
– Feel free to annotate; add a category
CV examples
Young Investigator Award
Circulation Section
American Physiological Society
Competitive award, selected annually by
physiological researchers based on cv, career
accomplishments, and abstract for annual
meeting
CV examples
New Investigator Award
Research in Medical Education
Central Group on Educational Affairs
of the Association of American Medical
Colleges
Competitive award, selected by medical education
researchers based on abstract and presentation
CV Examples
1998-2004
30 hours/year
Introduction to Clinical Medical (M1)
(the Medical Interview)
2004-present
10 hours/year
Bioethics Small Group Facilitator (M2)
2006-present
7 hrs/rotation
8 rotations/yr
Case-based Interactive Learning Sessions:
Pediatric interview and child development,
SP evaluation (M3)
Provides an idea of time commitment
Educator’s Portfolio
Used most often by those in Clinician Educator
and Academic Clinician pathways
Contains additional information beyond the CV
(do not duplicate)
Demonstrate your impact in education and
clincial program development
Quantitative data are better than testimonials
Be concise - no more than 10 pages (we prefer
5)
We do not need a statement of your philosophy
Portfolio Example: Teaching
4
3.5
All Faculty
3
2.5
All Year 3 & 4
COM Faculty
2
All Pediatric
Faculty
1.5
1
Dr. Chris Nelson
0.5
0
96-97
97-98
Student Teaching Evaluations: Dr. Nelson
compared to other faculty
Portfolio Example: Clinical
Section's Patient Volume
Year gone on
sabbatical
1100
1000
900
800
No. of Pts
700
600
500
400
1999
2000
2001
2002
Year
2003
2004
Portfolio Example:
Administration
Role:
Facilitator,
OSCE program development
Activities: Developed 12 OSCE stations
Implemented OSCE evaluation
Developed teaching OSCE, video
OSCE
Student rating: 90% rate it as excellent
Products: OSCE evaluation system
(reliability 0.69-.89)
2 peer reviewed national presentations
1 publication
Portfolio Example:
Academic Clinician
90
80
70
60
50
Implementation
of protocol
Percent
40
receiving
enteral
feeds
30
20
10
0
July
October
January
April
Letters of support
Ideally, they address your impact
Can provide us with perspective
Can put your accomplishments into a
context
Selecting Referees
Choose people who can speak to your impact
Choose people with stature; rank helps us
gauge this as does institution
Internal referees
– Outside of your department
– Comment on novel aspects of your contributions (eg
committee work or educational role)
External referees
– Must have left MCW more than 5 years ago
– Try to get a variety of institutions
The Promotion Process
Departmental review
(Internal Promotions Committee)
Chair proposes and submits “materials”
Faculty Affairs solicits and receives letters
Rank & Tenure Committee Review
Dean/Board of Directors Approval
What materials are required
when proposed?
Letter from the Chair outlining reasons that
promotion is requested and:
Curriculum vitae
Educator’s portfolio (CE/AC pathways)
Names of referees
Two publications
Deadlines for receipt of materials in
Faculty Affairs:
For July 1, 2012 implementation
October 1, 2011: Clinician Educator
January 1, 2012: Traditional, Research,
Academic Clinician, Tenure
Minimum number of referees
Research Clinician
Educator
Path
Path
Academic
Clinician
Path
Traditional
Path
Assoc
Professor
Internal
External
4
5
4
2
4
2
4
5
Professor
Internal
External
4
7
4
4
6
2
4
7
Preparing the Packet
(This occurs in Faculty Affairs)
Solicit letters from the referees.
– Referees are provided:
CV, portfolio and publications
MCW promotion criteria for rank and track.
When the minimum # of letters are
received, the packet is sent to the R&T
Committee.
R&T Committee
R&T committee members receive “packet”
several weeks ahead of the meeting (Chair
letter, CV, letters from referees, portfolio, publications)
Carefully review the entire packet before
the meeting
Comparison to requirements
R & T Committee Review
A member presents a brief overview of the
candidate’s accomplishments
Discussion; comparison to criteria
Vote, using a “motion, second” process
– Accept or reject proposed promotion
– Table for more information or clarification
Majority of those present required for action
We review as many as 15 packets/meeting;
rolling process
The Dean and Board of Trustees
Positive Vote on Promotion/Tenure
Dean notified
– Can overturn a positive, not negative vote
If Dean approves, sent to MCW Board of
Directors
If Board approves, promotion takes effect
July 1st.
Negative Vote
R&T chair communicates with departmental
chair
– Reasons for denial
Must wait until next academic year to resubmit
Appeal process
– Chair submits significant new information
– Or appeals to committee in person
Promotion and MCW culture
Traditional pathway faculty in the basic science
departments must be promoted to associate
professor within 7 years of assistant professor
appointment; other pathways do not have a
clock
• Tenure not automatically granted at Associate
Professor level
• The R+T committee will
– Work with department to optimize materials
– Provide advice regarding CV and portfolio
preparation
Promotion “DOs”
Start preparing NOW
–
–
–
–
Collect evidence
Keep CV up-to-date
Review often
Cultivate referees
Get input from others
– Colleagues, mentors, chairs, rank and tenure
members
Know the criteria
– Work to fulfill them
Promotion “Dos”
Use MCW format for CV/portfolio
Provide complete, accurate information
Don’t assume others know what you do
– Consider annotating CV
– Use portfolio if CV is insufficient to
demonstrate your contributions and impact
Submit your best publications
Promotion “Dos”
Select referees carefully
– Talk with them beforehand
– At or above proposed rank
– It is helpful if he/she can comment on
whether you would be promoted at their
institution
– Include key people in your career, but try
to expand beyond those involved in your
training
– Ask for more than required minimum
Promotion “DON’Ts”
No incomplete/sloppy materials
- No typos, incorrect grammar, incomplete citations,
duplications, out-of-date information
- Don’t mix abstracts, chapters, papers
- Follow the instructions for the CV categories
- When in doubt, ASK!
No “wish lists”
- Submitted papers
- Approved but not funded grants
No assumptions
– Define abbreviations
– Annotate to clarify
Summary
Have frequent discussions with your chair;
understand the departmental expectations
for promotion
Know criteria for promotion in your
pathway
– Deliberately pursue the criteria
Follow the process to provide best
evidence
Pay attention to the details
Summary
Promotion and Tenure decisions are
based on evidence of excellence in your
contributions to the MCW missions
Rank and tenure is flexible in our
consideration of “evidence of excellence”
Provide clear documentation
– Ask for help on preparation
Goal is to promote when prepared
Thank You!
Questions?